Chemtrails - New Evidence

HappyMonday

Moderator
The whole time I've been a member here, I don't think I've seen any evidence which hasn't already been round the mill at least twice, not including the REAMS of youtube footage of clouds. I've proved completely incapable of surprising anybody here with anything that's been thrown at me after inviting every troll on Twitter to do their worst for months.

How can this theory continue to exist in light of this fact? I fail to understand how believers can feel they're on a voyage of discovery (which they clearly do), when there's been NO new information for years and they are often simply reading the same information over and over again, slightly rewritten.
 
Three reasons spring to mind:

1) There's a constant flock of young people who discover conspiracies for the first time, and it takes them a while to figure it all out.
2) "True believers" will simply dismiss any explanation.
3) The theories do shift very slightly with time to accomodate debunking evidence, and to introduce new "evidence".

For example, the fact that there's a Weather Derivatives market is "new evidence". The fact that someone created a plankton bloom is "new evidence". While it's not actually really evidence, its newness keeps the overall topic fresh.

I've been making my posts on Contrail Science simpler and simpler, and yet I know they are still way too complicated for many people. The theory exists in part because we debunkers have failed to clearly debunk it. Take my latest:

http://contrailscience.com/contrails-are-condensation-but-not-like-your-breath/

It's fairly simple, and yet I know it will fail simply because to understand it you have to understand sublimation, and that is something they are totally unmotivated to do, and you can't really force them. Even if you provide them an explanation, they will not read it. If you give them a video, they will not watch it.
 
Last edited:
I've been making my posts on Contrail Science simpler and simpler, and yet I know they are still way too complicated for many people. The theory exists in part because we debunkers have failed to clearly debunk it. Take my latest:

Pictures works realy great in arguing. The Chemtrail-Believers doesn´t want to read too much, that´s the main reason why the are so addictive to videos. But Videos must be started and can be interrupted.

A picture is still there and transporting it´s message. It can´t be ignored.

A german chemtrail-Debunger has made some very practical pictures, maybe they could be an inspiration to you.
Chemtrail-Fragen | Für einen Himmel ohne Spekulationen

BTW. some of your pictures where also inspiration for us and sometimes we use them :-D
 
The two things are similar in that they involve a mixing process and condensation while the mixture is saturated.

In the BREATH case, if the air is well below freezing, AND ice-supersaturated, then the two things are EXACTLY the same. The condensed and frozen breath will persist.
If the air is not ice saturated (and it will never be in air above 0 degC), then the condensed/frozen breath evaporates/ablates.
 
The two things are similar in that they involve a mixing process and condensations while the mixture is saturated.

In the BREATH case, if the air is well below freezing, AND ice-supersaturated, then the two things are EXACTLY the same. The condensed and frozen breath will persist.
If the air is not ice saturated (and it will never be in air above 0 degC), then the condensed/frozen breath evaporates/ablates.

Hence the Siberia video, showing smoke-like breath.

 
Pictures works realy great in arguing. The Chemtrail-Believers doesn´t want to read too much, that´s the main reason why the are so addictive to videos. But Videos must be started and can be interrupted.

A picture is still there and transporting it´s message. It can´t be ignored.

A german chemtrail-Debunger has made some very practical pictures, maybe they could be an inspiration to you.
Chemtrail-Fragen | Für einen Himmel ohne Spekulationen

BTW. some of your pictures where also inspiration for us and sometimes we use them :-D

I agree, pictures are great. I'm thinking of widening the format of Contrail Science, so I can use larger images. The narrow format is getting a bit old fashioned now.

I think some of your images might be against the politeness policy :)
 
Pictures works realy great in arguing. The Chemtrail-Believers doesn´t want to read too much, that´s the main reason why the are so addictive to videos. But Videos must be started and can be interrupted.

A picture is still there and transporting it´s message. It can´t be ignored.

A german chemtrail-Debunger has made some very practical pictures, maybe they could be an inspiration to you.
Chemtrail-Fragen | Für einen Himmel ohne Spekulationen

BTW. some of your pictures where also inspiration for us and sometimes we use them :-D

I'd like to see a translation of those into english
 
Back
Top